Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

[Difflugia]

Question for debate: Are the patterns seen in molecular phylogenies sufficient to show that biological evolution occurred?

For reference and easier Googling, the science of generating evolutionary trees is known as cladistics or phylogenetic systematics. Using DNA sequence data to generate the trees is molecular phylogeny.

The standard of evidence I'll be discussing is reasonable doubt. Even that's pretty broad, but if your argument hinges on "possible," you should be able to at least quantify that.

I've generated phylogenies using online tools previously and discussed them in this post. I tried to start a tutorial in this thread. If someone wants to discuss how to actually use the tools and data, feel free to ask questions in the tutorial thread and I'll pick it back up.

This debate question is a response to this comment.

[SiNcE_1985]

That's not an answer and makes me suspicious that when you said you've looked into genetics, you weren't being truthful. So before I reach that conclusion, let's try again....

You claimed you looked into genetics. What topic(s) within genetics did you look into? Did you focus more on molecular or population genetics? Did you look into comparative genomics at all?

I said what I said.

I'm not under any obligation or limitation to choose just one...I am being as bold as I can be...my answer of "common designer" applies to any and all of your genetic talking points...so that's the answer that I'm giving.

I don't have a favorite one, or one that Id most like to discuss.

All of them fall under the same falsehood. Under the same lie and deception.

That's another non-answer. Remember all your bragging about how you know biology more than biologists? The more you dodge the more it looks like you weren't telling the truth.

So try again....what do you think is one of Kent's best arguments against evolution?

My answer will not change.

You can think whatever you like.

It's just a fact. There isn't a single published paper in any biology journals that uses "specified complexity" nor are there any biotech firms that use it or universities that teach it.

Because, specified complexity carries a certain theistic implication...and these implications make the majority (the boys) who are running the show uncomfortable.

So, it should come as no surprise why these public papers aren't toting such concepts.

True believers in God (like myself) could care less, though.

We are trying to get our names in the Lamb's book of Life, not in man-made scientific journals that don't mean a dang thang in this life, nor the next one.

While you focus on earthly things (scientific journals), we focus on heavenly things (Lamb's book of Life, God's Kingdom).

I urge everyone to get their priorities straight.

[Jose Fly]

I said what I said.

I'm not under any obligation or limitation to choose just one...I am being as bold as I can be...my answer of "common designer" applies to any and all of your genetic talking points...so that's the answer that I'm giving.

I don't have a favorite one, or one that Id most like to discuss.

All of them fall under the same falsehood. Under the same lie and deception.

Another dodge.

Did you ever read anything like this? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0309004424

My answer will not change.

You can think whatever you like.

How about I go look up some Hovind material and we discuss it?

Because, specified complexity carries a certain theistic implication...and these implications make the majority (the boys) who are running the show uncomfortable.

Interesting claim. Do you know if any ID creationists tried submitting a manuscript on specified complexity to a science journal and got rejected?

[SiNcE_1985]

Another dodge.

Did you ever read anything like this? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0309004424

No.

How about I go look up some Hovind material and we discuss it?

Go ahead. It's out there.

Interesting claim. Do you know if any ID creationists tried submitting a manuscript on specified complexity to a science journal and got rejected?

No, but if the prevailing view of the science community is "specified complexity has no place in science", then why bother?

[Jose Fly]

No.

Did you ever read anything on genetic phylogenies?

How about material on experimental evolution? https://www.pnas.org/action/doSearch?Al ... +evolution

Go ahead. It's out there.

Okay, will do.

No, but if the prevailing view of the science community is "specified complexity has no place in science", then why bother?

Because that's how scientific revolutions start. But if you never even try you're just guaranteeing you'll fade into obscurity.

And if we agree that ID creationists have never even tried to publish about specified complexity in any science journal, then it follows that it's not scientifically relevant.

[SiNcE_1985]

No.

Did you ever read anything on genetic phylogenies?

Common designer

How about material on experimental evolution? https://www.pnas.org/action/doSearch?Al ... +evolution

Common designer.

Because that's how scientific revolutions start. But if you never even try you're just guaranteeing you'll fade into obscurity.

Or, you can write best-selling books on the subject, where your material will sell independently of getting cosigned by the big boys.

This will (and has) prevent you from fading in to obscurity.

And you can also challenge mainstream science and debate scientists on the subject, which has also been done.

And if we agree that ID creationists have never even tried to publish about specified complexity in any science journal, then it follows that it's not scientifically relevant.

Ok, it isn't scientifically relevant.

Is that what you want to hear?

Cool. It's not.

Moving along.

[Jose Fly]

Common designer

Common designer.

You've not read anything on genetic phylogenies, experimental evolution, or comparative genomics.

Were you not being honest when you claimed that you looked at "all of it" when I asked what genetics info you looked at? Because it very much seems like that can't be true.

Or, you can write best-selling books on the subject, where your material will sell independently of getting cosigned by the big boys.

This will (and has) prevent you from fading in to obscurity.

And you can also challenge mainstream science and debate scientists on the subject, which has also been done.

None of that is how scientific revolutions happen. People write books and argue online about all sorts of things.

Ok, it isn't scientifically relevant.

Agreed.

[SiNcE_1985]

You've not read anything on genetic phylogenies, experimental evolution, or comparative genomics.

Were you not being honest when you claimed that you looked at "all of it" when I asked what genetics info you looked at? Because it very much seems like that can't be true.

First of all, that's not what I said.

I said that it is all subjected to the common design theory.

So please, let's not make up stuff in order to gain rhetorical points.

Second, I don't have to read up on it, because nothing about comparative genetics (in of itself) can decisively rule out intelligent design.

Third, my sources have read up on it, and they still ain't buying it (about the 5th time I made this point).

Fourth, I have evidence against naturalism, which is the only position I'm attacking.

So, no, I'm not reading up on bio-babble, as I know enough about the subject to take an informed opinion.

None of that is how scientific revolutions happen. People write books and argue online about all sorts of things.

We (believers) can care less about scientific revolutions.

Again, that is earthly stuff. We have bigger fish to fry (heavenly stuff).

The heavenly stuff, you can continue ignoring (as you just did)...it may not mean nothing to you...just like scientific journals and getting validation from atheists scientists don't mean anything to us.

[marke]

Question for debate: Are the patterns seen in molecular phylogenies sufficient to show that biological evolution occurred?

For reference and easier Googling, the science of generating evolutionary trees is known as cladistics or phylogenetic systematics. Using DNA sequence data to generate the trees is molecular phylogeny.

The standard of evidence I'll be discussing is reasonable doubt. Even that's pretty broad, but if your argument hinges on "possible," you should be able to at least quantify that.

I've generated phylogenies using online tools previously and discussed them in this post. I tried to start a tutorial in this thread. If someone wants to discuss how to actually use the tools and data, feel free to ask questions in the tutorial thread and I'll pick it back up.

This debate question is a response to this comment.

Genetic similarities do not force scientific acceptance of evolutionist narratives.

AI Overview
Learn more
Genetic similarities and phylogenies are considered strong evidence for macroevolution, as they indicate shared ancestry between different species, which is a key concept in the theory of macroevolution; however, they alone do not definitively "prove" it, as other lines of evidence like the fossil record are also needed to fully support large-scale evolutionary changes.

[Difflugia]

Genetic similarities do not force scientific acceptance of evolutionist narratives.

And that fantastically bright light in the sky doesn't force acceptance of the Sun as real, either, but here we are.

[Jose Fly]

First of all, that's not what I said.

I said that it is all subjected to the common design theory.

So please, let's not make up stuff in order to gain rhetorical points.

My apologies. We have established though that you've not studied or read about anything in genetics or biology.

Second, I don't have to read up on it, because nothing about comparative genetics (in of itself) can decisively rule out intelligent design.

That's true, since "intelligent design" is just another way to say "God did it". Since gods can do anything, anyone can just say "God did it" no matter what is discovered or proposed.

Third, my sources have read up on it, and they still ain't buying it (about the 5th time I made this point).

I understand that. The problem is, whenever I ask you what from your sources you find so compelling you won't say.

Fourth, I have evidence against naturalism, which is the only position I'm attacking.

So you're not arguing against science, abiogenesis, or evolution? Then what was all that you posted about knowing biology more than biologists stuff? What was your goal there?

So, no, I'm not reading up on bio-babble, as I know enough about the subject to take an informed opinion.

To be honest I don't think that's true at all. You seem to be someone who has a basic high school education in biology and that's it. So I have no idea what you've done that makes you think you "know enough" about biology.

We (believers) can care less about scientific revolutions.

Again, that is earthly stuff. We have bigger fish to fry (heavenly stuff).

The heavenly stuff, you can continue ignoring (as you just did)...it may not mean nothing to you...just like scientific journals and getting validation from atheists scientists don't mean anything to us.

It looks like we're just about done with the charade that you are some sort of expert in biology, and that you're here to debate science. Good!

I've been looking for written material from Hovind for us to discuss but it looks like he doesn't really write much of anything and instead prefers videos. So is there a video of his that's among your favorites?